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

401–410 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#401

Post by kthxbye123 »

dexen wrote: post #300
kthxbye123 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The provenance of the files is not questioned by far-right political operatives like Sean Davis who are pushing this story in the first place, but to anybody with half a brain cell and an ounce of skepticism the whole story stinks. Just listen to this interview with the owner of the repair shop these files purportedly came from, who changes his story about a half-dozen times in the span of sixty minutes: https://www.…

I hear your objection. Here is a fair and balanced coverage of the document's provenance by a 3rd party, uninvolved, newspaper: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8841255/Man-Hunter-...

This is a joke, right? The Daily Mail?

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#402

Post by onionisafruit »

benmmurphy wrote: post #27
rmrfstar wrote: post #13

Robert Graham [1] pointed out that if the emails are authentic, they can be trivially verified via DKIM. That the email metadata was not released implies the emails are either inauthentic, or that the post did not contact someone with basic competence in computer forensics. Either possibility seriously undercuts the article's credibility. [1] https://twitter.com/ErrataRob/status/1316407424648179717

It wouldn’t prove they were authentic. It would just prove they were sent through gmail’s servers. If you trusted gmail then it would prove the username, time and content was legitimate. All it looks like to me is some Russian username. I don’t see how it ties to a real person. I haven’t read the article so maybe the post explains that bit.

It could prove it was sent through gmails servers on April 17, 2015. There aren’t many people who would know the importance of the meeting five years ago. It would narrow the list of possible senders.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#403

Post by fooey »

Karunamon wrote: post #291

This was a shockingly dumb move. Whether or not you think these actions were politically motivated or made in good faith, it just poured liquid oxygen on the "reform section 230" fire you're seeing from both sides of the aisle - one using the censorship reason, the other using the disinformation reason. There's no way you don't block a newspaper, and the press secretary, and prevent anyone from even private messaging…

There won't be legislative blow back, the GOP is days away from being wholesale evicted from controlling anything at all in DC.

As a legislative move, this is changing their bet to the horse that's about to win. The social media companies are clearly more afraid longterm of what happens if they let this kind of stunt spread than they are afraid of the lame duck.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#404

Post by fullshark »

rectang wrote: post #108

For a counterpoint on why this story is likely BS: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/fivepoints/5-points-on-why-the...

Sounds like an open debate on the story on an app that imagines itself as a modern day town square would have been useful.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#405

Post by damnyou »

jimmydorry wrote: post #396
donohoe wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> is it also OK for AT&T on its phone network? For Google on Gmail Twitter is a closed-system and not a utility, and I guess that makes all the difference.

That is also a matter for interpretation, I believe. This cuts to the heart of the raging platform vs publisher debate (section 230). From my understanding, the current status quo is: 1. A platform can not moderate its content beyond removing illegal content that is brought to their attention; 2. A publisher can moderate and selectively cull what ever user content they like, but is held liable for any infringing cont…

This is not what Section 230 says and it is never what Section 230 has said.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-inte...

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#406

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

Solvitieg wrote: post #255
riffic wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really care about Twitter or Facebook to be honest. It's not the only game in town. I'd be more concerned if I bought server hosting from AWS, stood up a WordPress blog about my thoughts on capitalism, socialism, sports, and dogs, and Amazon decides to suspend my account due to my writings.

Even if you opt-out from Twitter, etc. Your political leaders and journalists are tuned in. Thus your life is still affected.

Even if you stop subscribing to

   (National Review|Atlantic|NYT|Reason|New Yorker|...)
your political leaders and journalists are tuned in.

Thus your life is still affected. Ergo, we should .... ???

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#407

Post by joe_the_user »

taxicab wrote: post #335
zzleeper wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Which is to say that Twitter and Facebook seem to have learned something and probably have telemetry telling them when a claim like this is getting legs.

My feelings on this are mixed. It's effectively restoring the "old media" order where random trolls can't steal elections. But it's naturally preventing "the truth" from stealing an election too.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#408

Post by geofft »

pacamara619 wrote: post #370
donohoe wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> is it also OK for AT&T on its phone network? For Google on Gmail Twitter is a closed-system and not a utility, and I guess that makes all the difference.

As far as I can tell Internet is not a utility either in the U.S. so what's your point?

Correct. US progressives and the major tech services recently argued that it should be treated as a utility, because of precisely this sort of problem, and they were opposed by US conservatives and ISPs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#United_States I'd say it's ironic, but it isn't really if you look at what the progressive and conservative movements and "big tech" have really been advocating for (which is off-topic for this site).

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#409

Post by Karunamon »

fooey wrote: post #403
Karunamon wrote: post #291

This was a shockingly dumb move. Whether or not you think these actions were politically motivated or made in good faith, it just poured liquid oxygen on the "reform section 230" fire you're seeing from both sides of the aisle - one using the censorship reason, the other using the disinformation reason. There's no way you don't block a newspaper, and the press secretary, and prevent anyone from even private messaging…

There won't be legislative blow back, the GOP is days away from being wholesale evicted from controlling anything at all in DC. As a legislative move, this is changing their bet to the horse that's about to win. The social media companies are clearly more afraid longterm of what happens if they let this kind of stunt spread than they are afraid of the lame duck.

What makes you think that the Dems wouldn't like to make social media companies liable for misinfo?

That's what I'm trying to say, here. Either way you slice it, 230 is in the crosshairs, it's just a matter of who's holding the gun and for what purpose.

I also wouldn't bet a cent of my own money on the GOP being "wholesale evicted". I heard very similar, equally confident talk in 2016.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#410

Post by nemothekid »

easterncalculus wrote: post #385
nemothekid wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah ok, when Trump says a negative article about him is "fake news" it's criticism, but when "disinformation" comes out about Biden it's a call for censorship? Am I insane for seeing the dissonance here?

I am agreeing with refurb's comment below you. Most people calling "fake news" are trying to convince you to not watch something. Most people calling "disinformation" are trying to convince you that you should not be able to watch something. I'm not taking the side of Trump or anyone at all by saying that criticism is different than censorship, that's just a fact. Your argument is not in good faith if bringing that u…

>Most people calling "disinformation" are trying to convince you that you should not be able to watch something.

I know it's been an insane 4 years, but, for Trump, this isn't true. He said, in his first year, he wanted to stated to take NBC off the air[1]. It's a message that he's been saying since before he took office. Understandably, taking a billion dollar corporation off the air is a lot more difficult than wiping an anonymous poster online, but to imply that "Fake News" is entirely just criticism is just complete ignorance of what the man has been saying for years.

>I'm not taking the side of Trump or anyone at all by saying that criticism is different than censorship, that's just a fact. Your argument is not in good faith if bringing that up to you is considered an implicit support for Trump, or anyone really.

If someone says the only people screaming for censorship are firmly on the left, how am I supposed to argue that point without focusing on Trump?

I'm not bringing this up because I want you to vote Biden or not vote for Trump, but to dispel this notion that "censorship" is exclusively some far left/right tool of oppression. My personal view is that these platform should do whatever they want, just like how HN mods run Hn the way they feel, and no private platform is "obliged" to give you a platform no matter how large they are. Regardless the _government_ should be limited in power to tell private companies in what they should and should not publish. To this day, there has been no _US government_ pressure to "censor" legal political posts - it's been entirely private actors who have taken censorship action. However to suggest that one side is 100% free speech and the other side are coming to take your "free speech" is misrepresenting what both sides.

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...

Post reply on HN