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

431–440 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#431

Post by valar_m »

This isn't inviting Section 230 reform, as some are arguing. It's a move to get out ahead of it.

From the DOJ's proposed 230 legislation[0]:

>>The second category of amendments is aimed at incentivizing platforms to address the growing amount of illicit content online, while preserving the core of Section 230’s immunity for defamation claims.

>>Section 230 immunity is meant to incentivize and protect online Good Samaritans. Platforms that purposely solicit and facilitate harmful criminal activity — in effect, online Bad Samaritans — should not receive the benefit of this immunity. Nor should a platform receive blanket immunity for continuing to host known criminal content on its services, despite repeated pleas from victims to take action.

Enforcing a hacked materials policy is fully consistent with the DOJ's proposed change. It's a classic strategy to curb potential regulation - clean up your act to show that you don't need to be regulated.

[0] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-unveils-pr...

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#432

Post by geofft »

_qulr wrote: post #376
tzs wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the past few years, we've seen these big tech companies operate in a manner that seems collusive. They follow each other's cues. One company is the first to censor, and then the other companies follow very quickly with the exact same censorship. Or they are using similar criteria to decide what is allowed, and so independently arrive at the same decision when the same thing is posted to them all.

"Twitter will ban posts that deny the Holocaust, a company spokesperson confirmed today. The news, first reported by Bloomberg, comes two days after Facebook implemented the same policy." https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/14/21516468/twitter-holocau... The Holocaust happened 75 years ago. Twitter's decision came 2 days after Facebook's. Q.E.D.

Sounds like competitor A does something and competitor B decides to keep up, or both of them responded to market conditions.

If airline A decides to offer free checked bags, and then a couple days later airline B does the same thing, would you think they're colluding?

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#433

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

sj3k wrote: post #374
cofeecup wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So glad I see this sentiment on here. I am still blown away by HN readers inability to critically analyze news sources. If this was some research paper it would have been put under the microscope by HN readers.

It helps that research papers on scientific domains have relatively easily verifiable data. It is much harder to claim ( not impossible ) that 1 is actually 0 if looked at from the right distance. Once we get to news ( assuming we bypass the whole conversation over how what passes for news is often opinion, or clickbait these days... ) you find out that 1s could indeed become 0s, you might not know all the facts, writers have bias, editors have bias, culture won't allow certain things to be said, polite society won't have a given phrase used.. the list just goes on and on.

It is not inability. It is just a ridiculous exercise in futility. Chomsky can barely do it. And he has way better memory, command of language and reasoning skills than I do.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#434

Post by thecureforzits »

reilly3000 wrote: post #279
patrickaljord wrote: post #269

Here's the article for those wondering https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden...

This is a colossal failure of a scam to discredit Biden. There was no chain of custody, the proported email had tons of tell tale signs of being faked, and NYPost posted exif data that undermined their whole claim. They even used ints for ids allowing a lot of unpublished docs out. https://twitter.com/russelneiss/status/1316398928850452481 https://twitter.com/russelneiss/status/1316402052885606400 https://twitter.com…

Interesting also to note that comments like yours pointing out the flimsiness of the evidence are being heavily censored by HN.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#435

Post by _qulr »

valar_m wrote: post #416
_qulr wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a matter of freedom. The standard argument is that freedom of speech only applies to governments, but that's based on an outdated assumption. In human history, we've never before had individual companies like Facebook and Twitter that are so enormous and have so much control over our public speech. (2.7 billion and 330 million monthly active users, respectively.) They have become "the town square of the world",…

>The standard argument is that freedom of speech only applies to governments, but that's based on an outdated assumption. >There's nothing special about governments with regard to freedom of speech except that it has always been assumed governments are the only entities with enough individual power to significantly restrict free speech. The difference is that Twitter can't put you in prison and it can't seize your pr…

> The difference is that Twitter can't put you in prison and it can't seize your property.

I specifically said I was talking about freedom of speech. There are many different kinds of freedom, and these aren't specifically free speech issues.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#436

Post by jeremyjh »

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…

I agree they blundered here. They don't want to be hijacked by another "leaks" story days before the election but now the suppression of this has become the entire story, and its convinced a lot of people the story is true and dangerous to Biden. Even if the email is true I don't see how its dangerous and if the only media carrying the story are the NY Post and Fox it doesn't hurt Biden.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#437

Post by donmcronald »

busterarm wrote: post #398
donmcronald wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Steve Bannon, former adviser to President Trump, told The Post about the existence of the hard drive in late September and Giuliani provided The Post with a copy of it on Sunday. I want to see the raw emails.

So your theory is that the emails are fake...what about the video of Hunter smoking crack?

I said I want to see the raw emails. That would be enough to determine if it’s purely made up or if _someone_ actually sent those emails. Raw emails would provide a lot of extra information for almost no effort.

I didn’t see the video. Was it published?

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#438

Post by p1necone »

Covzire wrote: post #254
p1necone wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming you're from America - your right is absolutely bugfuck insane and blatantly corrupt and the fact that you're talking about them as if they're not seriously affects my ability to take you seriously. What is with all these people talking as if the American right and left are just two regular sides of the same political coin without addressing the massive elephant (pun not intended) in the room.

Thanks for the reply I guess, and the clear reminder why so many had to die both in NA and Europe for the first amendment to become a reality.

How is the first amendment relevant here?

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#439

Post by reducesuffering »

MeinBlutIstBlau wrote: post #355
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.

Alex Jones touts a lot of nonsense but that doesn't mean the merits of what he's ranting about don't have value. Also as a comedic medium, it's an art form nobody else is doing. He isnt even indecent compared to just full of themselves types. He's just rants on hypothetical nonsense.

Strongly object to characterizing Jones as "comedic." His rallies sound like 1930's fascist speeches.[0]

[0]https://youtu.be/vL8Dz4mGv1g?t=61

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#440

Post by joshuamorton »

jimmydorry wrote: post #426
damnyou wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

You're going to need to be a bit more specific as your article offers a very similar interpretaiton of platform vs publisher (without using those terms), to what I presented. The only thing of note I see in your article is a "deep dive" into figuring out the "original intention" behind the law. I believe modern application of a law should matter more than what the writers of the law were potentially thinking at the t…

> I believe modern application of a law should matter more than what the writers of the law were potentially thinking at the time.

Section 230 has never been applied this way. Some people want to change it, but they haven't yet. There is no legal precedent that those people have to stand behind.

You're asking the courts to change the law based on executive preference. That's dangerous for a wide variety of reasons (ex-post-facto-ness, separation of powers, etc.)

In case you didn't understand the parent, section 230 was written to fix the issue that prodigy had. All section 230 does is protect people who moderate content from civil liability. That's it. The law itself doesn't distinguish platforms or publishers. It distinguishes first-party and third-party content (and gives you protection for third party content, even if you publish first party content and moderate the third party content). That's all.

Nothing about platforms or publishers, and nothing about categorizing a company as one or the other. Only protection around certain kinds of content.

Post reply on HN