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

The Twitter Files

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 1001 posts

Re: The Twitter Files

#431

Post by sroussey »

tmaly wrote: post #383
noah_buddy wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s blowing my mind to see people on Twitter reading the story and thinking this is an issue of whether or not Hunter Biden is a problem. This is clearly the much more pernicious issue that 1. social media companies are massively influencing the dissemination of information on an ad hoc basis informed by personal political whims and 2. even the leaders of these organizations are unable to rein in these influences.

It seems this could have had a big impact on the election. Now that we know the laptop is real, what do you think will come of it?

Nothing. Today makes no change on if the laptop was real or not.

Re: The Twitter Files

#433

Post by chrisco255 »

fzeroracer wrote: post #236
sasmithjr wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was the content of the "handled" tweets, though? I think that matters a lot. For example, the RealJamesWood tweet (from [0]) seems to be a leaked nude of Hunter; it was most likely (safe to say) posted non-consensually, and I don't really see a big difference between that kind of tweet and revenge porn. Having "stuff they dislike" removed would be one thing, but using the direct line at Twitter for reporting exp…

Not just that, but revenge porn is literally illegal in the state of California, where Twitter is HQ'd. I'm getting increasingly annoyed by people pointing to those removed tweets as a smoking gun while being completely unaware that we know the contents of said tweet and said tweets can easily be interpreted as violating Twitter's ToS at minimum and actively violating California law at worst.

The case in point was the removal and censorship of the NY Post's story on the laptop, which was incredibly relevant to the Presidential election. It revealed Hunter as a degenerate crackhead, and an unqualified man-child who benefited directly from his father's position as Vice President to get a powerful, paid position on the Burisma Board of Directors, a favor for which he committed "10% to the big guy" (among other positions, Burisma was not the only one). It underscored the corruption of the current U.S. president, who used his power and influence over foreign relations with Ukraine to enrich his own family and himself.

The pornographic images, to what extent they were shown in the NY Post, were redacted. The main function they played is in showing that the laptop contents couldn't have been fake.

Re: The Twitter Files

#435

Post by ajross »

Dem_Boys wrote: post #169
noah_buddy wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s blowing my mind to see people on Twitter reading the story and thinking this is an issue of whether or not Hunter Biden is a problem. This is clearly the much more pernicious issue that 1. social media companies are massively influencing the dissemination of information on an ad hoc basis informed by personal political whims and 2. even the leaders of these organizations are unable to rein in these influences.

Honest Question: If the white house contacts Twitter and asks for a tweet to be removed, is that a first amendment violation?

Clearly it's not about the first amendment if it's a request. The constitution is clear that congress (and by extension the executive branch as it's been interpreted for two centuries) "shall make no law" (or regulation or rulemaking or enforcement action, ditto). A request is just a request. In fact a request is pretty clearly just speech and can't be restricted because of the very same amendment. Twitter doesn't have to listen to id, but Joe or whoever has every right to ask.

Now, if there's lawmaking/regulation/rulemaking/enforcement aimed at Twitter by the executive branch, that's a very different thing.

But in this particualr case it's also sorta nonsensical. The stuff released today is about the Biden campaign, which was a private entity. Biden himself held no government position at all, so the point gets pretty strained.

Re: The Twitter Files

#436

Post by pimlottc »

anigbrowl wrote: post #58
slickdork wrote: post #41

Anyone have the 'long form' of this to read? Twitter is such a terrible way to read long content. Aside: I really enjoyed Taibbi's few books, but haven't respected his online opinions since around 2016. I'm not surprised Elon chose Taibbi to 'break this story' considering what 'side' Taibbi's been on -- he's had a pretty clear bias, but I'm willing to check out more of his reporting here in long form.

Just wait until he's done and then tweet '@threadreaderapp unroll' (or look for replies to people who already placed the request. You'll get a link toa. single-page version.

Until your post, I had no idea he wasn’t finished. What a way to read a complex story :P

Re: The Twitter Files

#437

Post by dd36 »

cplusplusfellow wrote: post #409
Dem_Boys wrote: post #127

Most concerning thing here is that this proves political parties (including the white house[0]) have a direct line to Twitter[1] to get stuff they dislike removed. One would have to assume that there was also a direct line to other social medial platforms. It's so wild to have the slimy-ness of our American political system be revealed in yet another way. So in America you cannot say negative things about political l…

Yes but only for some White House admins. The previous White House admin saw their press secretary’s account suspended because the campaign didn’t like the fact that she tweeted about this story. The current White House likely wouldn’t see that same fate.

You need to think of Twitter as MSNBC or Fox News. Bias in editorial decisions is perfectly legal.

Re: The Twitter Files

#438

Post by ajross »

Dig1t wrote: post #118
andreyk wrote: post #108

It does not seem like this really exposed any new information - Twitter publicly justified its actions as being about its hacked data policy back when this all happened ( https://www.nationalreview.com/news/twitter-cites-hacked-mat... ). All this shows is some internal disagreement as to whether that was the right call. By the way, Facebook also suppressed the news story citing its misinformation policy ( https://www…

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598827602403160064 Biden team asking Twitter to "handle" tweets they don't like. This rubs me the wrong way, nobody in government should be telling Twitter to remove speech.

> This rubs me the wrong way, nobody in government should be telling Twitter to remove speech.

Uh... Biden wasn't in government. It's so weird seeing all the posters in this thread arguing simultaneously that The Real Problem here is government control over the media and citing as evidence the fact that Twitter bent to the whims of someone not in government.

I mean, why is government control such a big deal when private citizens (like the Biden campaign, or this other guy who seems to have a lot of control over Twitter all of a sudden) can get the same favors? Either it matters or it doesn't, right?

Re: The Twitter Files

#439

Post by sroussey »

textbookrental wrote: post #204

Does twitter have a current transparency policy that would provide any reasonable evidence that this type of behavior has stopped?

Stopped??? My god, the whole point is that now you need to be a friend of Elon to get stuff you don’t like removed.

Re: The Twitter Files

#440

Post by chris_wot »

Aeolun wrote: post #280
noah_buddy wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s blowing my mind to see people on Twitter reading the story and thinking this is an issue of whether or not Hunter Biden is a problem. This is clearly the much more pernicious issue that 1. social media companies are massively influencing the dissemination of information on an ad hoc basis informed by personal political whims and 2. even the leaders of these organizations are unable to rein in these influences.

So in a way Elon taking over is good. At least it’s abundantly clear the whole platform is run based on his personal whims now.

Has he removed that direct line?
Post reply on HN